Hillis's own perceived value >>>>>>>>> Heckgrin's value of Hillis. And its starting to look like Heckgrin may have been on the money there.

I was going to come back and reply to the above. Yes Hillis had a good season, but he and his agent are indeed valuing Hillis too high. Imagine what an agent would have commanded after Joe Charbeneau's rookie campaign.

Galley Boys are slop on top of a so-so burger and a bun you coulde get from a Covneninet food mart generic pack. They the Antoine Joubert of burgers; soft, sloppy, oozing grease and cheap sauce and extremely overrated by a biased fan base. Proof that if you throw enough cheap sauce shit on a burger you still can't overcome the lame burger. -JB

Regardless of how negoitations went, RB's just dont hold a high value anymore, and seeing where the org is currrently, thinking that Hillis would be worth anything by the time the Browns were ready to compete is a stretch I think.

Unfortunately even coming off last season he wasn't likely garnering a 2nd, and this season his value has tanked. Sickening but the Browns may be in a situation where they cannot sign him and cannot trade him.

Is he unrestricted after the season? If so, I'm prepared to see him walk for nothing.

JCoz wrote:Regardless of how negoitations went, RB's just dont hold a high value anymore, and seeing where the org is currrently, thinking that Hillis would be worth anything by the time the Browns were ready to compete is a stretch I think.

Unfortunately even coming off last season he wasn't likely garnering a 2nd, and this season his value has tanked. Sickening but the Browns may be in a situation where they cannot sign him and cannot trade him.

Is he unrestricted after the season? If so, I'm prepared to see him walk for nothing.

This is his 4th year, so he should be Unrestricted.

And you're right - they can't trade or sign him. He's gone. Which is fine on one hand since he's nothing special, but he's also the best we got and creates another hole.

Not that I advocate breaking the bank to keep him - I don't. Especially not with the way he surgically had his man-parts replaced by a vagina in the offseason. Just another setback in a line of setbacks longer than the Lake Erie shoreline.

This is sad.. really wanted Hillis to not be an ego driven psuedo celebraty diva money grubbing football player.. and yet, reality is.. that is exactly what he is. Also, apparently he can't stay healthy or something. Does he somehow think that not playing increases his value? Obviously as it has been stated, we CAN'T trade him, because the deadline is passed, and without a contract extension, we can't legally trade him.. but even if we could, who would give up a 2 for a one-year-wonderback?

trsteve1 wrote:This is sad.. really wanted Hillis to not be an ego driven psuedo celebraty diva money grubbing football player.. and yet, reality is.. that is exactly what he is. Also, apparently he can't stay healthy or something. Does he somehow think that not playing increases his value? Obviously as it has been stated, we CAN'T trade him, because the deadline is passed, and without a contract extension, we can't legally trade him.. but even if we could, who would give up a 2 for a one-year-wonderback?

Are you saying that Hillis is healthy enough to play and is choosing not to because of the contract thing?

trsteve1 wrote:This is sad.. really wanted Hillis to not be an ego driven psuedo celebraty diva money grubbing football player.. and yet, reality is.. that is exactly what he is. Also, apparently he can't stay healthy or something. Does he somehow think that not playing increases his value? Obviously as it has been stated, we CAN'T trade him, because the deadline is passed, and without a contract extension, we can't legally trade him.. but even if we could, who would give up a 2 for a one-year-wonderback?

Someone might have before the season, But even if we COULD legally trade him today or even in the off season, he wouldn't bring more than a high 4th rounder.

Trading in the NFL is going to go back to what it was about 5 years back - which is non-existent.

One of the main impetus' (or is it impenti?) of dealing picks was financial. Now, your first and second rounders are bargains, cause you don't have to back up the Brinks. You got em' for four years at a good price.

Which, of course, makes what the Raiders did even more idiotic, but recognize the rule rather than the exception.

Hillis is worth nothing in a trade, slightly....slightly lower than 6 weeks ago.

leadpipe wrote:Trading in the NFL is going to go back to what it was about 5 years back - which is non-existent.

One of the main impetus' (or is it impenti?) of dealing picks was financial. Now, your first and second rounders are bargains, cause you don't have to back up the Brinks. You got em' for four years at a good price.

Which, of course, makes what the Raiders did even more idiotic, but recognize the rule rather than the exception.

Hillis is worth nothing in a trade, slightly....slightly lower than 6 weeks ago.

What is the % difference in the contract size for a 2nd rounder now?

I dont know lead, obviously you've got a good record for ending up on the right side of these types of things here but I think you might be overplaying this hand.

The highest impact is by far the first rounders. These see a significant reduction in contract size, but then, how often was anyone dishing out a 1st for a Vet anyways? Besides the Raiders that is.....it just wasn't happening.

The worth of 2nd rounders and below are affected much less and so thier value is relatively similair to what it was before the cap. Which to most teams was still alot.

All I'm saying here is that I disagree that this shift in trade mentality stretches beyond the first maybe 40 picks in the draft. And I am interested to see the outcome over time, but I think the numbers from 2010 to 2011 show that 2nd round and below contracts are not significatly changed.

LP - I think there will still be trades. Maybe more. But they will be evaluated more on talent than on cost.

If the rookie scale was in place last year, do you still think that the Browns/Falcons trade happens? I do. I see no reason for it not to. The Falcons wanted Jones. Thought he might put them over the top. The Browns wanted more talent. I don't think the cost of the draft positions figured that much into it.

I supposenthat it's possible that the Browns don't trade out of that pick if it is cheaper, but I have to think that they valued the extra picks they were getting more than they valued Jones (or whoever else they might have had their eye on) at this stage of the rebuild.

motherscratcher wrote:LP - I think there will still be trades. Maybe more. But they will be evaluated more on talent than on cost.

If the rookie scale was in place last year, do you still think that the Browns/Falcons trade happens? I do. I see no reason for it not to. The Falcons wanted Jones. Thought he might put them over the top. The Browns wanted more talent. I don't think the cost of the draft positions figured that much into it.

I supposenthat it's possible that the Browns don't trade out of that pick if it is cheaper, but I have to think that they valued the extra picks they were getting more than they valued Jones (or whoever else they might have had their eye on) at this stage of the rebuild.

motherscratcher wrote:LP - I think there will still be trades. Maybe more. But they will be evaluated more on talent than on cost.

If the rookie scale was in place last year, do you still think that the Browns/Falcons trade happens? I do. I see no reason for it not to. The Falcons wanted Jones. Thought he might put them over the top. The Browns wanted more talent. I don't think the cost of the draft positions figured that much into it.

I supposenthat it's possible that the Browns don't trade out of that pick if it is cheaper, but I have to think that they valued the extra picks they were getting more than they valued Jones (or whoever else they might have had their eye on) at this stage of the rebuild.

motherscratcher wrote:LP - I think there will still be trades. Maybe more. But they will be evaluated more on talent than on cost.

If the rookie scale was in place last year, do you still think that the Browns/Falcons trade happens? I do. I see no reason for it not to. The Falcons wanted Jones. Thought he might put them over the top. The Browns wanted more talent. I don't think the cost of the draft positions figured that much into it.

I supposenthat it's possible that the Browns don't trade out of that pick if it is cheaper, but I have to think that they valued the extra picks they were getting more than they valued Jones (or whoever else they might have had their eye on) at this stage of the rebuild.

motherscratcher wrote:LP - I think there will still be trades. Maybe more. But they will be evaluated more on talent than on cost.

If the rookie scale was in place last year, do you still think that the Browns/Falcons trade happens? I do. I see no reason for it not to. The Falcons wanted Jones. Thought he might put them over the top. The Browns wanted more talent. I don't think the cost of the draft positions figured that much into it.

I supposenthat it's possible that the Browns don't trade out of that pick if it is cheaper, but I have to think that they valued the extra picks they were getting more than they valued Jones (or whoever else they might have had their eye on) at this stage of the rebuild.

Not technically. But IIRC pretty much everyone knew it would be there in some form once the CBA was ironed out.

Agreed. There was no way the new CBA wasn't going to have it b/c both sides wanted it.

I still think that trade gets done either way. Atlanta was on the SB-or-Bust train (looks like Bust right now). The Browns don't trade if Von Miller, Marcell Dareus, AJ Green, or maybe even Pat Peterson dropped, but likely felt there was enough dropoff from those guys to Julio that the trade was worth it.

I think Heckert wasn't worried about what Julio would cost contract-wise, just that what they could get back was > than JJ (hard to argue with that, imho).

There was already agreement between players/owners on the rookie wage scale when the draft was held. It wasn't formal, but it was commonly known as common ground as the vets were always in favor of it anyway.

Just sayin'...at the time of the past draft the cost of picks was already known to be greatly reduced from what it had been, because the players wanted more for the vets and the owners wanted relief from themselves..

peeker643 wrote:There was already agreement between players/owners on the rookie wage scale when the draft was held. It wasn't formal, but it was commonly known as common ground as the vets were always in favor of it anyway.

Just sayin'...at the time of the past draft the cost of picks was already known to be greatly reduced from what it had been, because the players wanted more for the vets and the owners wanted relief from themselves..

Probably why Heckert was able to get such a motherload compared to what Kokinis/Mangini got.

Hillis's own perceived value >>>>>>>>> Heckgrin's value of Hillis. And its starting to look like Heckgrin may have been on the money there.

I was going to come back and reply to the above. Yes Hillis had a good season, but he and his agent are indeed valuing Hillis too high. Imagine what an agent would have commanded after Joe Charbeneau's rookie campaign.

I apologize for not seeing these replies earlier. I was suggesting that maybe Gocong's deal might have played a factor in souring Hillis. I probably did a bad job of articulating it but sometimes when you lock up a scrub and don't take care of your better performers, it can lead to a hostile workplace, no matter what the profession.

If Hillis IS a high maintenance type guy, than it might be better to move on without him.

municipalmutt wrote:I apologize for not seeing these replies earlier. I was suggesting that maybe Gocong's deal might have played a factor in souring Hillis. I probably did a bad job of articulating it but sometimes when you lock up a scrub and don't take care of your better performers, it can lead to a hostile workplace, no matter what the profession.

If Hillis IS a high maintenance type guy, than it might be better to move on without him.

Again, we don't know when the Browns started negotiations with Hillis, what they offered, what he wants, etc. There is no doubt that they were trying to get a contract done. Just because Gocong accepted an offer they made doesn't mean they were "taking care" of him and ignoring Hillis. For all we know, they made generous offers that were turned down, and they offered Gocong his contract on one of their "off" weeks from trying to convince Hillis that he isn't worth $10 mil a year.

Just because Gocong accepted an offer they made doesn't mean they were "taking care" of him

Sorry but extending a guy who after a season plus, has had so few impact plays you can count them on one hand, is slower than any DE on the team, and wouldn't sniff a starting spot anywhere else IS being "taken care of" by my definition.